Tony,

I see your point.

Does this presume that BS will be taking responsibility for the original
domain?

If Resent-From: becomes the source for DKIM verification, in essence, it has
become a 3rd party signature system in the eyes of downlink verifiers?  Yes?

If it is viewed as a brand new submission, then I think it is more
consistent, but this is why SSP plays a vital role here.

As long as we have uncontrolled potential of 3rd party signers, we will also
have a big mess of who is truly valid or not, especially when it comes to
unsigned original mail.

In my view, the DKIM compliant BS server (router/resender) should be "picky"
on what it signs as original or as a resend.  This is where SSP helps.

Also another no so minor point:

Will DKIM mandate support for RESENT-* fields?  That's an awful big jump if
so.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...


> Person A sends the message to Person B. A's server AS does not sign the
> message. Person B decides to resend the message to Person C, and B's
> server BS duly adds a Resent-From: header and does signing.
>
> As far as BS is concerned, the Resent-From: header is the one that
> *should* be signed, not the From: header.
>
> Tony Hansen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hector Santos wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> So if message has Resent-From field would SSP check be done against
From
> >> or Resent-From or both?
> >
> > The verification is already done before the Resent-From was added.
> > i.e., Resent-* should not be in original mail.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to